Posted on 08/23/2015 3:56:39 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The Iran deal has potential, both because of public opinion and the way the administration is positioning itself, to hurt Democrats in much the same way that the Iranian hostage crisis did in 1980 and 1981. Should New York Senator Chuck Schumer succeed in killing the deal, he will be saving the Democrats from what appears to be a grave political mistake.
President Obama has branded opponents of the deal as either ideological extremists or ignorant. In his speech at American University, he compared the agreement’s opponents with Iranian extremists chanting “death to America.” He pointed out that most of those opposed to the Iran deal supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003, thus implying that they were warmongers—conveniently overlooking that his vice president and both of his secretaries of state voted for the war in Iraq.
Listening to the president you would never know that a plurality of Americans, including key parts of the Democratic party’s coalition, are opposed to the nuclear agreement. The Secure America Now (SAN) poll found 45 percent of Americans opposed the deal in July—up eight points from June—and that figure rises to 65 percent after respondents hear more details about the agreement. A more recent Fox poll shows that initial opposition has grown to 58 percent.
In both polls, barely 50 percent of Democrats support the agreement and well over one-third oppose. A critical group of Democratic voters—African Americans—is split on the issue, while Hispanics are overwhelmingly opposed. Making matters worse, a solid majority of women and younger voters oppose the agreement too.
Rubbing salt in these public opinion wounds, President Obama’s popularity is upside down with 52 percent of Americans rating him unfavorably. By contrast, the public views Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposes the nuclear deal, as favorable by a two-to-one margin.
Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and other members of the administration have been berating the nuclear deal’s opponents. Kerry has been almost disdainful to members of Congress who have the temerity to suggest that the deal should be voted down and renegotiated. He claims that it’s too late to revise the agreement—the UN has already approved the deal, he says, the P5+1 partners won’t be willing to reopen negotiations and the Iranians have no interest in making revisions. Kerry seems to have become a defender of Iran’s rights rather than an advocate of the United States’ best interests.
Obama once said that a bad deal was worse than no deal. Now he and Secretary Kerry want us to believe that the choice is between a bad deal or war. At a news conference on July 15, the president made this false choice explicit: “Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it’s resolved through force, through war. Those are—those are the options.”
According to an op-ed by former Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, “the administration has used these same arguments before to try to stop Congress from imposing economic sanctions on Iran...but...when the sanctions were adopted, the doomsday forecasts were proven wrong.” Apocalyptic warnings are always the starting position of the Obama administration, and time after time they have been disproved.
For all his rhetoric, though, Obama has a problem: The SAN poll reveals that 62 percent believe that the deal doesn’t make America safer and more secure. Over 60 percent feel that the deal doesn’t prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon—the stated goal of the negotiations. And over 80 percent of respondents don’t believe that Iran should be given up to $100 billion in economic sanctions relief without Congressional approval, including 74 percent of Democrats.
Indeed, the administration’s problems are certain to become even more complicated by the revelation that the Iranians will be submitting their own data to the UN monitoring agency and doing their own inspections. This flies in the face of public opinion: the SAN poll finds that more than 60 percent believe the agreement should be voted down if the inspections are completed by an independent agency and the details of any and all side deals are made public to Congress.
Not only is there growing skepticism from the public, but Obama’s worst political nightmare has been realized: two prominent Democratic senators have decided to oppose the Iran agreement on principle—Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez.
It had been widely assumed that Obama would hold enough Democrats in Congress to ensure that, if Congress rejects the Iran deal, the president’s veto will prevail, and the deal will go forward. But that was before Senator Schumer announced his opposition to the current deal, urging that a better agreement be negotiated.
Schumer, who has until now been a faithful Obama supporter, has been the target of attacks that rival what the Obama administration hurls at Republicans. Administration supporters have warned that Schumer may be endangering his future leadership position, while rabid left-wing groups like Moveon.org allege that he is “voting for war.” Clearly, the administration and its allies believe that there is no such thing as legitimate opposition to the Iran agreement.
Schumer’s decision and his thoughtful and articulate statement explaining it reflect a man putting conscience before politics. Had Schumer—who is normally known as a hyper-partisan actor—been acting politically, he would have delayed his announcement as long as possible.
For all the abuse he’s taking, Schumer may actually be protecting the Democratic Party from the real political danger inherent in Obama’s actions. The contempt that the president and John Kerry showed by taking this agreement to the UN before submitting it to Congress and the American people was reckless. They are not only thumbing their noses at the American people and Congress, but they are showing contempt for the primacy of our system of checks and balances and they could be setting up the Democratic party for years of attacks of “you caused this!” every time Iran behaves in a threatening manner.
Should Obama veto a bill blocking the Iran deal and defy the will of Congress, he would once again find himself on the wrong side of public opinion: 61 percent of voters would want a veto overridden. If a veto is sustained solely by Democrats two-thirds of respondents, including a plurality of Democrats say they would blame the Democratic party if Iran got a nuclear weapon or used the money from sanction relief to support terrorist attacks on Israel.
By contrast, Schumer’s principled stand enjoys broad support: In another part of the SAN poll, Democratic voters were asked what their senators and representatives should do when faced with difficult choices—support the president or follow their conscience if they oppose him—35 percent said that they should “trust the President and his negotiators and support their party’s leader,” while 59 percent wanted their representatives and senators to set aside party loyalties and follow their conscience on the issue at hand.
As President John F. Kennedy famously said, “Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.”
Congress is in recess, but the coming weeks will tell whether Democrats have the courage to stand up for what they believe and what the American people want, or whether they will be cowered by their president and risk damaging the party for years to come.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/chuck-schumer-iran-deal-121605.html#ixzz3jgL3G1IL
The Schumeister is not lifting a finger to scuttle the agreement.
I'm always suspicious of Schumer's motives, but he cares more for the survival of the Jews in Israel than he does for the short-term political objectives of the Obama administration.
I hope the authors are right about the long-term damage to the Democrats from the agreement...which pales in comparison to the long-term damage to Iran's enemies once it can deliver its nukes to targets.
The 'Rats are going to H377.
Actually African-Americans have good reason to fear that the Obama/Kerry/Clinton iran nuclear agreement will pass by virtue of Obama’s veto!!! Iranians are not Arabs......but they are Persians. And......Persians....putting it mildly have absolutely no use for any Christians, especially African & African-American Chrstians!!! You folks figure out the rest!!! The handwriting is on the wall for all to see and understand. POTUS, Obama, once again has thrown African-Americans under the bus!!! poor sould cannot see the forest for the trees!!!
Schmucky ain’t saving anything except his precious NY senate seat. Its only the anger from his jewish constituents that’s made his decision. Otherwise he would kiss Bammy’s butt as usual.
Nonetheless, Schumer’s vote isn’t needed so it’s appropriately “Kabuki”.
There might be some worry for Schumer that opposing Obama will hurt him with “black” voters. Can’t see it myself but he, no doubt, keeps a close eye on that aspect.
I think Pat and Doug are dreaming.
The anti-Semites are no longer afraid to proudly stand tall in the Democrat Party. These Jew Haters likewise hate Christianity, and they’re gaining strength in the party of slavery, segregation and submission to central planning.
Liberal fascists hate the Judeo-Christian world view. With a passion.
Pollutico doing its part to send a message to Schmuckie to save the RAT party.
I called one of Schumer’s offices and explained why I thought if the deal with Iran went through, NYC would get wiped. The staffer who answered the phone was cordial and receptive. I expressed my appreciation for Schumer’s stand.
The staffer for Manchin, one of my senators, was anything but cordial.
...The GOPee are for the deal...
Another reason why Trump is growing.
And, the GOPe, its candidates, liberals, pundits, the MSM,
much of Fox, and 5 or so regular detractors posting here
haven’t a clue why.
...for the glory of communism?
“Schmucky ain’t saving anything except his precious NY senate seat. Its only the anger from his jewish constituents that’s made his decision. Otherwise he would kiss Bammy’s butt as usual.”
If he doesn’t stop this thing he isn’t going to have a senate seat or constituents . You have to be just plain stupid to think if Iran has a bomb that they will not choose the same exact targets that the 9/11 attackers did .
Iran is not shopping for long range missiles to nuke Israel . To nuke Israel they DO NOT NEED long range anything .
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you want to cost the most financial devastation in America you attack NYC and you kill the markets and you hit DC to cause more chaos .
Please stop calling Obama incompetent; you only give him a pass.
OK, you are right.
Red, I totally agree with you. I've said that also for sometime now and have been told by the idjits that I'm being racist.
I'm still surprised at the number of people do NOT SEE the "INTENTIONAL" aspect of his actions.
We have a Muslim presidink running interference for his Muslim brothers globally, while he directly dismantles the America we LOVE.
It can't be anything but INTENTIONAL.
We must remember the lessons of Clintonian triangulation.
Schemer may be strident and angrily against this until the last moment, when he will suddenly see the light, or recognize some previously unspoken nuance, and thus come around to Obama’s way.
If this scenario comes to pass, make no mistake: There is no change on Schumer’s part, and no arm twisting from Obama. This was always the way it was meant to play out.
Then it will be ok for all Democrats to fall in line.
Not saying it’s going to happen this way, but be ready for it.
Absolutely.
1) Ask the chair to rule whether the agreement, and how Obama has presented it, fits the standards set forth in the Corker bill or is instead really a Treaty requiring 2/3 of Senators but none of the House.
2) If Biden holds the chair and rules "Corker, not Treaty" or if some GOPe holds it and is willing to so rule, then appeal that ruling to the Senate as a whole. If 51 vote the agreement is really a treaty (a 50-50 tie would be broken against us by Biden) then they should next move for an immediate vote on this Treaty and vote it down. At that point you have Obama saying its an executive agreement and the Senate saying its a treaty GIven that ratifying Treaties is purely a Senate power and that former Senator Dungheap (D-IAI) got then Chief Justice Renhquist to rule during Clinton's impeachment "trial" that the Senate was solely responsible for its own procedures we should be able to win, or at least long delay the dispute in the courts. Burn Obama's clock, not ours. The only question is whether enough enough RINOs and allegedly pro-Isreal Rats would go along to reach 51 votes. At worst it better delineates their true status, a Cruzian technique. At best the GOPe would recognize it as a way to let Corker save face, pretending the now excessively unpopular agreement was not what he'd envisioned originally.
The way things are going that might not be such a bad thing. <ba dum tshssshhh>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.